Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e

[Staffan]

Regardless of how one feels about the design quality of either First Edition or Second Edition there is little continuity in the creative talent. The only meaningful continuity between the initial First Edition design is Jason Buhlman. My impression is that Jason was very involved in setting design priorities, but most of the actual day to day stuff was handled by other members of the team. These designers were responsible for Pathfinder Unchained and Starfinder, but they played no part in the foundational design of First Edition.

There's pretty much no continuity at all between the main design on Pathfinder 1 and Pathfinder 2, because the main designers on the Pathfinder 1 core book were Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams. Their names might not have been on the cover, but they were responsible for most of what was in between.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I wouldn't go that far. Third edition is, at the very least, playable right out of the box. I would never inflict Fifth Edition on anyone, without some serious house rules.

I assure you, 5e is "playable right out of the box."

You might not agree that it's the case for your table, and that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it is so in the general sense. 5e wouldn't have its current popularity if everyone had to house rule it to make it playable. IME, it is a very newb friendly game, particularly because it is easy to DM.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

I wouldn't go that far. Third edition is, at the very least, playable right out of the box. I would never inflict Fifth Edition on anyone, without some serious house rules.

Aaand someone else who feels it's O.K. to attack 5e. Edition warring is so easy, isn't it?

 

[Parmandur]

I wouldn't go that far. Third edition is, at the very least, playable right out of the box. I would never inflict Fifth Edition on anyone, without some serious house rules.

Oh, man, all of us who have been playing 5E for the last 5 years must be doing something wrong, then...

 

[darjr]

I’m doing it wrong on purpose!

 

[MockingBird]

Sometimes I get the feeling some folks diss 5e because of its popularity and the cool thing to do is not like what the majority likes.

 

[Arilyn]

Sometimes I get the feeling some folks diss 5e because of its popularity and the cool thing to do is not like what the majority likes.

In this case, Saelorn genuinely dislikes 5e.
From his posts, it's easy to see, he is not the kind of person to hop on the cool bandwagon.

 

[Campbell]

Fifth Edition is a really good game that is imminently playable out of the box. It is also not a perfect game. Design is largely about trade offs. Often to do one thing well you must make compromises in other areas. What is does well it like does really well. It provides a very smooth and incredibly accessible play experience.

As someone who is an avowed fan of the indie game scene I very much dislike the conflation of popularity with design quality. There are many good games that are not popular. Fifth Edition is a good game that happens to be popular. There are some games that were once very popular that I consider to not be well designed games. Games like Vampire.

I also broadly dislike using Fifth Edition as the gold standard for what other games with different design priorities and goals should look like because I value having a catalog of games that are meaningfully differentiated. I have Fifth Edition already. I do not need it again. Just like not every indie game needs to be Powered By The Apocalypse or Forged in the Dark.

Generally when I say something critical about a game I am not making a claim about its overall quality. I am generally talking about how well it is suited for a particular purpose. I consider Pathfinder Second Edition to be a really well designed game, but I would not use it for a one shot or for a game that was mostly a social event. For those sorts of games Fifth Edition or Dungeon World are much better fits.

 

[Kaodi]

If you ripped level out of an ancient red dragon you would get this (I am going to treat level 1 as rather than 0 for easier comparison to the level 1 PCs we are familiar with):

Ancient Red Dragon, Creature 19
Uncommon CE Huge Dragon Fire
Perception +17; darkvision, scent (imprecise) 60 feet, smoke vision
Languages Abyssal, Common, Draconic, Dwarven, Jotun, Orcish
Skills Acrobatics +12, Arcana +17, Athletics +19, Deception +17, Diplomacy +17, Intimidation +19, Stealth +15
Str +9, Dex +5, Con +8, Int +5, Wis +6, Cha +7
Smoke Vision Smoke doesn’t impair a red dragon’s vision; it ignores the concealed condition from smoke.
AC 27, Fort +17, Ref +14, Will +17; +1 status to all saves vs. magic
HP 425; Immunities fire, paralyzed, sleep; Weaknesses cold 20
Dragon Heat (arcane, aura, evocation, fire); 10 feet, 4d6 fire damage (DC 21 basic Reflex)
Frightful Presence (aura, emotion, fear, mental) 90 feet, DC 22
Attack of Opportunity Reaction Jaws only.
Redirect Fire Reaction (abjuration, arcane); Trigger A creature within 100 feet casts a fire spell, or a fire spell otherwise comes into effect from a source within 100 feet. Effect The dragon makes all the choices to determine the targets, destination, or other effects of the spell, as though it were the caster.
Speed 60 feet, fly 180 feet
Melee Single Action jaws +19 (fire, magical, reach 20 feet), Damage 4d10+17 piercing plus 3d6 fire
Melee Single Action claw +19 (agile, magical, reach 15 feet), Damage 4d8+17 slashing
Melee Single Action tail +17 (magical, reach 25 feet), Damage 4d10+15 slashing
Melee Single Action wing +17 (agile, magical, reach 20 feet), Damage 3d8+15 slashing
Arcane Innate Spells DC 24; 8th wall of fire (at will); 4th suggestion (at will); Cantrips (9th) detect magic, read aura
Breath Weapon Two Actions (arcane, evocation, fire) The dragon breathes a blast of flame that deals 20d6 fire damage in a 60-foot cone (DC 24 basic Reflex save). It can’t use Breath Weapon again for 1d4 rounds.
Draconic Frenzy Two Actions The dragon makes two claw Strikes and one wing Strike in any order.
Draconic Momentum The dragon recharges its Breath Weapon whenever it scores a critical hit with a Strike.
Manipulate Flames Single Action (arcane, concentrate, transmutation) The red dragon attempts to take control of a magical fire or a fire spell within 100 feet. If it succeeds at a counteract check (counteract level 10, counteract modifier +14), the original caster loses control of the spell or magic fire, control is transferred to the dragon, and the dragon counts as having Sustained the Spell with this action (if applicable). The dragon can choose to end the spell instead of taking control, if it chooses.

Would that seem still sturdy enough to deal with a large number of low level foes?

 

[BryonD]

The Improve-by-level math has been present in all versions of D&D- PF2 just standardized it and applied it across the board.

The devil is very much in the details here. The phrase "applied it across the board" carries such vast change that to compare the idea to prior editions is meaningless.

And, as an aside, if it is such a trivial change, then why in the world would they do something makes no significant impact and yet alienates a lot of fans? The answer is clearly that it isn't remotely a trivial change.

Skill system- the new system is very much like the old system. In fact, you can makes a case that the old skill system is the math upon which the entire new system in based. Rather than apportion skill points, you automatically gain a skill point in every skill in which you are proficient as you level up. Skill Focus feats and such are replaced by the proficiency levels (trained/expert/master/legend).

Meh, given the last minute change to untrained, this is somewhat true. But the system still pushes toward assumption of a lot of proficiencies. As written it still is an odd move that is grating to those who dislike spindly nerd wizards being great at climbing and barbarbians with +13 to engineering and knowledge of religious rituals.

The final version is on a place that houserules can work through it pretty well.

Combat system- in the new system, everyone has full BAB in their chosen fields of combat. They also gain in defenses as they go up in level as well. While I'm still evaluating the system as whole, the fact that higher level characters become inherently harder to hit as they gain levels sounds very cinematic and intuitive to me- You shouldn't be able to land an easy blow on a master swordsman. differences in ability are handled by proficiency levels rather than by 1x/0.75x/0.5x multiples

In combat there is a complete and total difference. And it is reasonable to see the changes as a lose/lose proposition.
Adding level to AC has no match in prior versions and flies completely in the face of the opening hand wave comment about "present in and versions of D&D-PF". The idea that "you should be able to land a blow" is not remotely a fact, but rather entirely one of taste. So if you don't share that taste, PF2E is telling you "too bad".

And, of course, this applies just as well to nerdy wizards as it does to "master swordsmen". The L1 orc can't hit a L5 wizard any better than he can the L5 "master swordsman". But put that same "master swordsman" in an anti-magic field 30x30 room with a naked L10 wizard and that wizard land easy blow after easy blow on the nose of that super-stud "you shouldn't be able to" hit, while the "master swordsman" can't seem to catch this naked guy with no fighter levels and no magic powers.
And you might call that an absurd corner case. But I want to "BE" that cool guy in the game. And I know when that orc is whiffing on me as the swordsman it is NOT because of any cool modeling of "master swordsman" happening here. It is because the same math that says the no-magic-wizard can hit me in the nose is applying here. In effect the game is rigged to ignore everything about what makes me cool and instead assure that the orc misses me purely because I have the number "5" in the right cell on my character sheet.

Characters who should not be awesome based on their narrative are "awesome" anyway, and characters who really should be awesome are simply doing what any other character with that number would do. Lose/Lose